IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 15.09.2010 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN W.P.NO.46143 OF 2006 (O.A.NO.4291 OF 2000) M.Murugeswari ... Petitioner Versus 1.The Commissioner Kodaikkanal Municipality, Kodaikkanal. 2.The Commissioner Municipal Administration Chepauk, Chennai 600 005. ... Respondents PRAYER: This Writ Petition came to be numbered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by way of transfer of O.A.No.4291 of 2000 from the file of Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal with a prayer to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Town Planning Inspector in the first respondent Municipality for which she was selected on 14.05.1999 by the Committee constituted by the first respondent forthwith. For Petitioner : Mr.B.Soundara Pandian For Respondent-1 : Mr.V.Radhakrishnan For Respondent-2 : Mrs.Lita Srinivasan Government Advocate O R D E R
The petitioner is a Diploma holder in Civil Engineering. The first respondent sent a call letter dated 11.05.1999 to the petitioner asking her to appear for an interview for the post of Town Planning Inspector on 14.05.1999 on the petitioner being sponsored by the Employment Exchange. The petitioner was directed to bring the certificates mentioned therein. Accordingly, she participated in the interview. It is stated that the petitioner was provisionally selected. But before the order of appointment was given, G.O.Ms.No.125, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 27.05.1999 was issued, prohibiting any fresh appointment. Hence, appointment order was not issued to the petitioner.
2.The petitioner filed Original Application in O.A.No.4291 of 2000 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal praying for a direction to the respondents appoint her in the post of Town Planning Inspector.
3.On abolition of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.46143/2006.
4.Heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.
5.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was selected before the issuance of the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.125 and hence, the first respondent ought to have issued an appointment order.
6.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the first respondent has made his submissions based on instructions and contends that though the first respondent selected the petitioner for the post of Town Planning Inspector, the same was not communicated to the petitioner. Before the same was communicated, G.O.Ms.No.125 was passed and Clause 3(ii) of the said G.O., prohibits any fresh appointment and that therefore, the selection was cancelled and no appointment order was issued to the petitioner. He further submits that since the selection was not communicated, the petitioner could not ask for appointment.
7.I have considered the submissions made on either side. Though the first respondent selected the petitioner for the post of Town Planning Inspector pursuant to the interview conducted on 14.05.1999, before communicating the same, G.O.Ms.No.125, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 27.05.1999 was issued. Clause 3(ii) of the said G.O., is extracted hereunder:
“3(ii) nkw;fz;l gl;oaypny ,lk; bgw;Ws;s jpdf;Typg; gzpahsh;fis mth;fspd; jFjpf;nfw;g rk;ke;jg;gl;l efuhl;rpfs; khefuhl;rpfs; ngU:uhl;rpfs; mt;tg;nghJ Vw;gLk; fhypg;gzpapl’;fspy; (vz;lhp ypty; ngh!;l;!; only) epakdk; bra;J. mt;thW epakdk; bra;ag;gl;l ehspypUe;J mth;fsJ gzp tuz;Kiw bra;ag;gLtJld; gzpf;fhyg;gad;fSk; fzf;fplg;glntz;Lk;/ gzp tuz;Kiw bra;ag;gLk; fhyj;jpypUe;J Xuhz;L tiu ,th;fs; khjk; U:/2000 vd;w bjhFg;g{jpaj;jpy; mkh;j;jg;gLthh;fs;/ jpdf;Typg;gzpahsh;fs; Kiwahf gzpaplj;jpy; epakdk; bra;ag;gLtjw;F Kd;g[ gzpg[hpe;j fhyk; gzpg;gad;fSf;F vLj;Jf;bfhs;sg;gl khl;lhJ/ jpdf;Typg; gzpahsh;fs; nkny gj;jp 3(i)y; Twg;gl;Ls;s gl;oaypy; fz;Ls;s fhypapl’;fspy; epakdk; bra;ag;gLk; tiuapy;. ntiy tha;g;g[ mYtyfk; K:yk; g[jpa epakd’;fs; bra;ag;glf;TlhJ/”
8.In view of the ban for direct recruitment through Employment Exchange, the petitioner’s selection was cancelled by the first respondent and the same was not communicated to the petitioner and hence, no appointment order was issued to the petitioner.
9.In this regard, para 14 of the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in State of U.P. vS. Rajkumar Sharma reported in 2006 (3) SCC 330 relied on by the learned counsel for the first respondent is extracted hereunder:
“14. Selectees cannot claim the appointment as a matter of right. Mere inclusion of candidates name in the list does not confer any right to be selected, even if some of the vacancies remained unfilled and the candidates concerned cannot claim that they have been given a hostile discrimination.”
10.In view of the aforesaid facts, the petitioner could not ask for appointment, particularly when the petitioner was not even communicated her selection. Hence the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.
15.09.2010
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
TK
To
1.The Commissioner
Kodaikkanal Municipality
Kodaikkanal.
2.The Commissioner
Municipal Administration
Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.
D.HARIPARANTHAMAN, J.
TK
W.P.NO.46143 OF 2006
(O.A.NO.4291 OF 2000)
15.09.2010